Project Reality Forums

WZ551A vs Stryker converts in ROFL situations, when they stand next to each other shooting infantry not caring about enemy APC
or another effective tactics against stryker: if it stands next to ditch\down slope, ram it to the side and it will die upside down, or if it next to water hit it so he sink in water
how its realistic?
the statement that Qwai is inf\light APC only is wrong, heavy vehicles have place to operate, have places where they dominate and places where it can be easily pwned by infantry, its not an open desert map, where you have no place to hide from heavy assets

using TOW humve’s don’t work ether

its one shot- one kill vehicle, with guided rocket, very fast, and it protects its crew from 25mm autocannon(or am i missing something and HMMWV can withstand AP burst into its glass?) its very deadly if crew is not completely dumb
i remember round, where chinese just give up using APCs, because they could do nothing, we were spamming the chat with "what the TOW status, where is it?" and only silence in response, i know, its a fail of team, but is it realistic when TOW is able to kill APC even if it spotted it 1st? i mean, i put 5-10 AP rounds into it and it just turns and kills me, when goes ofr repairs

Correct me if I'm wrong but you have a specialy made tank for that terrain. It has a turret that doesn't turn.

they also has Leo tanks, if you dont like his example, take a look at russia

DankE_SPB wrote:its one shot- one kill vehicle, with guided rocket, very fast, and it protects its crew from 25mm autocannon(or am i missing something and HMMWV can withstand AP burst into its glass?) its very deadly if crew is not completely dumb

Me and Colonelcool were using the TOW HMMVW a week or so back. We took about 2 blasts from the 25mm through the windscreen, during the time it took our enemy to do that, I had to swing the TOW 90 degrees, then kill them. We were both bleeding badly and I nearly died but the HMMVW was barely scratched IIRC.

WZ551A vs Stryker converts in ROFL situations, when they stand next to each other shooting infantry not caring about enemy APC

nah, stryker shoots the WZ gunner

WZ driver tries to push the stryker in to the river

Sgt.Smeg wrote:Me and Colonelcool were using the TOW HMMVW a week or so back. We took about 2 blasts from the 25mm through the windscreen, during the time it took our enemy to do that, I had to swing the TOW 90 degrees, then kill them. We were both bleeding badly and I nearly died but the HMMVW was barely scratched IIRC.

unless the team's really bad the chinese will alway's win, at least on my server.


What the Aussies do is get all the APC up at once and then chase after it, when they find it they all jump on it all at once and then kick the S### out of it might take one of them with it, but then it a APC the Chinese can afford to lose. then they just spend the rest of the very short round annulating the US side and because of the extremely long respawn of the TOW it very difficult for the US to get the ball back in there favour.

So really i don't see how the TOW is supposed to function at all, when the terrain is against it and it is completely out numbered

I must say that with tanks, Qwai was probably one of the best examples of a asymmetrically balanced map (and one of the most fun) there have ever been.
Not only from a heavy/slow vs light/fast/agile point of view but the map also invited for a game play that suited it. You both had these wide open lands (now also with further view distance) allowing the tanks do dominate everything, but also narrow passages between these where you without much hassle could ambush the tank as infantry, making it fun for inf too. And even if people is used on tanks it doesn't have to mean that it has to be less inf engagement. Think "less is more". Also look at bf1943, that's 32(?) players and people say that don't see any noticeable difference to 64 players.

And saying that "US would never engage in combat/tanks without 1337 pwnzor M1A1s/a10s/whatever is just fail.
Who knows, Qwai might be a strategic point needed to be taken in an early point of the "war" but for some reason, heavy support might not be possible to get at that time, and the only force nearby is this small recon force. Just look at Generation Kill which, though beeing Hollywood, in fact is based on real events, they rarely had access to heavy support.

Same thing pretty much goes for Chinas tanks. Maby they didn't have something more suitable nearby than this mechanized inf/tank unit. It's these kinds of conditions that make a battle interesting, not an engagement where one team would have all the advantages perfect.

Asymmetrical Symmetry, what a concept.

Me thinks that's what the mapper was thinking when he created Korrengal.

akatabrask wrote:I must say that with tanks, Qwai was probably one of the best examples of a asymmetrically balanced map (and one of the most fun) there have ever been.
Not only from a heavy/slow vs light/fast/agile point of view but the map also invited for a game play that suited it. You both had these wide open lands (now also with further view distance) allowing the tanks do dominate everything, but also narrow passages between these where you without much hassle could ambush the tank as infantry, making it fun for inf too. And even if people is used on tanks it doesn't have to mean that it has to be less inf engagement. Think "less is more". Also look at bf1943, that's 32(?) players and people say that don't see any noticeable difference to 64 players.

And saying that "US would never engage in combat/tanks without 1337 pwnzor M1A1s/a10s/whatever is just fail.
Who knows, Qwai might be a strategic point needed to be taken in an early point of the "war" but for some reason, heavy support might not be possible to get at that time, and the only force nearby is this small recon force. Just look at Generation Kill which, though beeing Hollywood, in fact is based on real events, they rarely had access to heavy support.

Same thing pretty much goes for Chinas tanks. Maby they didn't have something more suitable nearby than this mechanized inf/tank unit. It's these kinds of conditions that make a battle interesting, not an engagement where one team would have all the advantages perfect.

exactly!! thats the exact storyline that was in my head when I made the map..

it doesnt matter a piece of piss what each faction "should" have... what mappers are creating is storyline and great battles...where one side or the other has something heroic to achieve against all odds...the tanks for the PLA on qwai always created alot of tension for the "almighty" US...which I absolutely loved..

Straight and simple, it's been said before, but it's worth saying again.
Qwai's entertainment value (for me at least) was in that unlike the vast majority of maps, the asset loadout was so different, and yet each team had such an equal chance to win only if they play by the rules their sides allow. If the US fought the Chinese war, they lost. No staying power versus tanks. If the Chinese fought by the US rules, they lost. Nowhere NEAR enough speed and agility to be in just the right place at the right time.

The games that were truely evenly matched in terms of team strength always ended in a draw, absurd luck not withstanding. It wasn't about who's hardware was better, it was about who played their strengths versus the other teams weaknesses. I don't see a lot of maps that reward that anymore on AAS. (Insurgency is entirely based on this, but thats a whole 'nother can of worms)

If the other faction had littlebird equivalents that held people and TOW stand ins, I would love that map just as much as Qwai before it fell to the axe. Interesting scenarios are more fun than straight up fights 9/10 times! (But that one time, if it's something like Kashan first was, back when it was new and no one was bored of it..... Oh man are those fun.)

I'm fine with Qwai just getting some attack LB support.

At most, an Apache. Which is already getting close to overkill.

Well, imo, the helicopters doesn't really matter because i think they didn't really add anything to the map when they were in. Sure, you could get some transport quickly from one place to another but mostly they just stuck around by themselves doing other stuff like shooting at each other.

Also, one thing I've noticed is that since AAS3 was introduced the flags always squeeze up on this tiny strip somewhere along the center of the map resulting in that only a small part of the map is actually used for combat which is kind of sad because you don't get to use all of the various environments that are to the "flanks" so to speak.
Something to do there could be to spread out the "clusters" of flags somewhat and maybe add another or two more flags, at least on the layers with more vehicular support.

I love, AASV3.

It forces commander to be creative, and I for one am thankful for that. One of my best commanding rounds was on this map, and I had to focus on flanking and securing flanks.

Iron...my man...You made a beautiful thing...thank you.

I like to have Tanks on CHINA back!
I can understand why the Choppers r out , but we had a lot of fun with the Tanks right ?
And maybe you could give 1 or 2 Bradlys to the US Team. They are good for Transport and Tankhuntig...

They have a TOW additonal to the TOW-Hummvee...

K4on wrote:I like to have Tanks on CHINA back!
I can understand why the Choppers r out , but we had a lot of fun with the Tanks right ?
And maybe you could give 1 or 2 Bradlys to the US Team. They are good for Transport and Tankhuntig...

Bradleys are IFVs. Tanks are tanks. Do the math.

Would you have a Sherman go up against a Tiger 2 tank?

I love, AASV3.

on this map its really detrimental

1) gets all the infantry in a small area, so they can be HEAT shelled to hell

2) Makes the team concentrate on very small areas, when the best strategies for the map actually utilise large areas of the map.

I played today Qwai ,and it was really fustrating. The chinese are over powered they got 20mm on their apc, while we got .50 on the stryker. We need Bradleys instead of the Strykers, and Tow Humvee. Also sometimes the LAT wasn't enough sometimes to kill the Chinese APC, which added to my fustration sometimes i only left them smoking.